Talk:Phytochemical/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wording change needed[edit]

TonyClarke, can you change the wording in this phytochemical entry so that phytochemicals become the subject in your recent edition? For example, instead of saying "people believe" can you say "phytochemicals are believed" and change the rest of the grammar accordingly? It just seems more "encyclopedic" to have the subject of the sentence be the subject of the entry if possible. Thanks for your time and input on this entry. - Plautus satire 15:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

TonyClarke, I made some very slight changes to the wording, I don't think what you put there was inaccurate, I just wanted to emphasize phytochemicals as the subject instead of people's belief as subject, and also I changed it to reflect the lack of challenge to this evidence, so far as I know there is agreement so unless somebody else wants to challenge I think it's okay to just say "it is believed". It's a shame we have to pick over our words so carefully, so that these entries read almost like a legal disclaimer. - Plautus satire 16:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your care and readjustment of my hasty additions. I think it is a really important subject, so I get carried away and perhaps my insertions to maintain NPOV are a bit cursory! - TonyClarke 22:51, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Table format needs work[edit]

Thanks for watchdogging this entry, silsor, perhaps you can fix the format so the table doesn't look so ugly. - Plautus satire 03:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Untangling needed[edit]

This article needs some untangling, for example if common foods are the most usual source for these micronutrients (as the table in the article suggests) then it seems odd to say that Africa is the commonest source and America the greatest consumer of phytochemicals. Unless we're talking here about the artificial extraction of phytochemicals, and their marketing as supplements. But I don't know if there is a lot of that going on, it's nutritionally unsound anyway, IMHO. - TonyClarke 22:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Selenium statement needs sourcing[edit]

"Selenium is a pre-cursor of Glutathione, a potent and important antioxidant manufactured primarily in the liver."

This statement needs sourcing, and makes no sense to me, as it may be necessary to catalyze the formation of Glutathione, but is not a precursor, since Glutathione contains no Selenium. - Symcoxkd (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarians[edit]

The re-inserted sentence is still, to me, just as POV as the prior version. This article is about a class of nutrients; there is zero reason to mention vegetarianism or veganism in it. In addition to the POV issues, there's no verification for this sentence, and there's no reason why a meat-eater couldn't get just as many phytochemicals in his diet if he eats lots of fruits and vegetables. That section is propaganda for a pro-vegetarian viewpoint and it doesn't belong. | Klaw ¡digame! 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, with respect. To say it doesn't beong is itself POV. Phytochemicals most often are discussed in books or contexts which are regarding vegetarianism, and a meat eating traditioin would always see phytochemicals as marginal.

But they are not, they are absolutely essential for health, and their decline in our food has been blamed for lots of illnesses. So vegetarianism and phytochemicals are inextricably linked. Perhaps that is what needs spelt out, but that level of detail would truly be out of place in the entry. I think the mention of veganism and vegetarianism is enough, and justified imo

TonyClarke 23:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say it doesn't beong is itself POV. That's nonsense. It doesn't belong because it has no verification. Is requiring verification now POV?
To the point, can you provide any data whatsoever to demonstrate that vegetarians and vegans get more phytochemicals than carnivores who eat a lot of vegetables? That's the crux of this argument. I asked for verification and got a lot of rhetoric in return. The mention comes out until it's sourced. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ketchup IS a vegetable[edit]

If ketchup is indeed a good source of lycopene as the article says, that means that Ronald Reagan was right--ketchup is a vegetable! I doubt that! Keraunos 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't mean that at all. As this article clearly states, phytochemicals come from plant foods. Ketchup is indeed a plant food because tomatoes are a primary ingredient. But just because ketchup is a source of lycopene doesn't mean it is reasonable to substitute it, a la Reagan, for fresh fruits or vegetables. Especially not in the diets of children, which was the original context of Reagan's sadistic remark (lower the cost of school lunches with French fries and ketchup). Ketchup also contains toxins such as refined sugar and/or corn syrup. funkendub 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous... Wiki wiki1 04:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acai left out?[edit]

I was reading about the acai palm and much of the article is on its phytonutrient value. I then came to this page and the acai is not mentioned at all. Is the goal of this article to mention more common foods that Americans eat? Apparently Brazilians eat acai on a regular basis. Ambienthealth 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add it? Qaz 20:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's there now. -- Beland 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta-carotene in Cancer section[edit]

But studies of supplementation with large doses of beta-carotene in smokers have shown an increase in cancer risk (possibly because excessive beta-carotene results in breakdown products that reduce plasma Vitamin A and worsen the lung cell proliferation induced by smoke)

This should be deleted or reworded. The results of this study were from the testing of synthetic beta-carotene and thus this study has no bearing on the effects of actual phyto-nutrients.

I wouldn't say it has "no bearing" if the two are chemically identical or very similar. I added the word "synthetic" to the article. But this and many other claims still need references, so this sort of thing can be fact-checked. -- Beland 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed list of superfoods[edit]

The following section was removed:

List of some foods rich in phytonutrients Some animal derived foods are also considered superfoods. Beginning in 2005, there has been a rapidly growing recognition of several common and exotic fruits recognized for their nutrient richness and antioxidant qualities, with over 900 new product introductions worldwide[1]. More than a dozen industry publications on functional foods and beverages have referred to various exotic or antioxidant species as superfruits, some of which are included in the list below.

The Superfood of the ages, now cultivated for mass distribution:

I removed it because it seemed random, unauthoritative, and not directly related to the topic. There seems no specific criteria for being on the list (all plants contain phytochemicals). This material is already covered in Superfruits and List of phytochemicals in food, both of which are linked from the article. Herd of Swine (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ Starling, Shane (2006). "Superfruits — superheroes of functionality". Functional Foods & Nutraceuticals. Retrieved 2007-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |day= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Schauss AG, Wu X, Prior RL, Ou B, Huang D, Owens J, Agarwal A, Jensen GS, Hart AN, Shanbrom E. Antioxidant capacity and other bioactivities of the freeze-dried Amazonian palm berry, Euterpe oleraceae mart. (acai). J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Nov 1;54(22):8604-10.Abstract.
  3. ^ International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, 2002, Volume 4, Issue 4, ISSN 1521-9437. Effects of Total Triterpenoids, Extract from Ganoderma lucidum (Curt.:Fr.) P. Kairst. (Reishi on Experimental Liver Injury Models Induced by Carbon Tetrachloride or D-Galactosamine in Mice, Zhi-Bin Lin, Ming-Yu Wang, Qiang Liu, Qing-Ming Che, Department of Pharmacology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Beijing University, Beijing 100083, P.R. China
  4. ^ American Herbal Pharmacopeia, September 2000, Editor Roy Upton, Santa Cruz, California.

Beta-carotene?[edit]

Beta-carotene is the first given example of a phytochemical, but the rest of the article seems to be talking about how these chemicals may affect health, but there's not enough evidence for a scientific consensus. Um... isn't there a scientific consensus that beta-carotene is good for you? It's an A vitamin that's comparatively hard to overdose on, isn't it? Twin Bird (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors regarding reference #1...[edit]

First of all, after the fourth sentence of the first paragraph, [1] is typed in, but it's not even a hyperlink. It's just plain text.


Second of all, reference #1 is an invalid URL that sends me to a page with this typed into it:

"Invalid URL

The requested URL "/~dms/lab-ssa.html", is invalid.

Reference #9.1fde54b8.1322508290.b9300cea" PrintedScholar (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references[edit]

Moved from Further reading section:

--Ronz (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your opinion and suggestion.

These reviews are meant for readers who would like to delve deeper into the subject.

The reviews are placed in the “further reading” – section because the Wikipedia guideline for this section read: “… publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. The Further reading section (…) should normally not duplicate the content of the References section” (WP:FURTHER).

The Wikipedia content guideline for “Identifying reliable sources (medicine)” (WP:MEDRS) read: “It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible.”

The reviews in question reflect the latest research (last 10 years) in the field, they are scholarly and peer-reviewed, and they are published in academic journals. Granateple (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organoleptic[edit]

I feel that a small bit of the phrasing in the intro is unfortunate, albeit not a big deal. It says that phytochemicals " are responsible for color and organoleptic properties"

organoleptic means roughly "noticable with the senses." A great word but not really helpful in this article except to make it appear scientific. ALSO color is already organoleptic so that is redundant. ALSO a phytochemical (such as selenium perhaps?) can be totally undetectable to the unaided senses so organoleptic is incidental, very worth mentioning but maybe not so prominently.

I changed it once and it was changed back. So I don't care that much, but anyone following this article could comment here if they wish. Gentlemath (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemath -- thanks for the interpretation. It can be fairly stated that all essential nutrients (selenium is one) are phytochemicals, but not all phytochemicals are nutrients. This is a distinction that I, as one editor, use to qualify content for the Article.
In food science, nutrients are a distinct category of dietary compounds that have passed scientific scrutiny as being significant for body functions, consequently assigning them Daily Values. In the absence of a given nutrient, by definition, a disease results, demonstrating it's "essential" to be in the diet.
By contrast, scientific definition of body importance for phytochemicals is insufficient, so these remain mostly unknown for their importance for disease prevention or significance to humans. Many have sensory properties of significance to the plant's ability to attract foragers for seed dispersal or to ward off undesired predators or environmental stresses. Until science understands the nutrient value of phytochemicals, it seems reasonable to address them as sensory or defensive agents for the plant itself, some of these characteristics having importance for sight, aroma and/or flavor of foods to foragers and human consumers.--Zefr (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Botanical additives[edit]

The far-from-perfect Botanical additives article contains a number of useful references relating to applications of phytochemicals, mostly in veterinary science, but at present is essentially a content fork. Suggest merging here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. It is not clear why this would be any different from phytonutrients. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge: Phytochemicals are quite distinct from Botanical additives because they are: well-defined molecules rather than complex mixtures, can be synthesized using chemical processes, and need not be added to anything. The scope of each of the pages is significantly different and a merge would confuse the distinction between these topics. Klbrain (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Given that this is a 3 year old proposal, nothing seems imminent to happen, there is no justification for a merger, and the proposal should be closed. The Botanical additives article is misinformation and the sources are generally weak to such an extent that I am going to propose it for deletion. The Phytochemical article and list of phytochemicals in food depend mainly on links to the individual phytochemical classes, which doesn't present an easy solution for making the Phytochemical article more comprehensive as a stand-alone source. --Zefr (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear context[edit]

The lede is a few sentences about what phytochemicals are in general, while the rest of the article is purely about phytochemicals in human nutrition and medicine. If this is a term used predominantly in nutrition rather than botany the lede should make this clearer, otherwise if the term is also commonly used to talk about their function in plants details should be included in the rest of the article (I don't know which it is!). Cyrej (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I wish to discuss if there is consensous to add to this entry citing the following article should be added to this section: Nature Reviews Cancer 3, 768-780 (October 2003) | doi:10.1038/nrc1189, titled "Cancer chemoprevention with dietary phytochemicals". by Young-Joon Surh. See [1]

I propose that the following quotations from the above article be added to this entry: "More than 250 population-based studies, including case–control and cohort studies, indicate that people who eat about five servings of fruit and vegetables a day have approximately half the risk of developing cancer — particularly cancers of the digestive and respiratory tracts — of those who eat fewer than two servings.” 

and

"Vegetables and fruit are excellent sources of cancer- preventive substances. The NCI [National Cancer Institute [2]] has identified about 35 plant-based foods that possess cancer-preventive” cancer.Recently, the focus and emphasis have shifted tothe non-nutritive phytochemicals. The NCI has determined in laboratory studies that more than 1,000 differentphytochemicals possess cancer-preventive activity. It is estimated that there could be more than 100 different phytochemicals in just a single serving of vegetables."

The Jounal 'Nature' is highly regarded throughout the scientific community. If a pdf of the above article is required let me know.

Thank you, George

References

  1. ^ http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/full/nrc1189.html
  2. ^ https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/

Tacit1 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The part about diet is not about this topic but rather maybe plant-based diet. It is also garbled. And finally it is ridiculously POV. Many phyotchemicals are known to cause cancer as well. Please read the folowing paper: Science 1992. Please. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is certainly about this topic. But second link should to the certain page, not to https://www.cancer.gov/ index page. Cathry (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Facebook. Policy-violating content cannot enter Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Surh review is 14 years out of date, so is not usable by date, and is also not a strong source for implying health effects per WP:MEDRS. More recent MEDRS-quality reviews and/or meta-analyses indicate weak or no evidence for phytochemicals from plant food consumption in breast, lung, or bladder cancers. Also, the final word for product labeling in the USA, the FDA, maintains weak language linking any influence of plant food consumption on cancers, here. --Zefr (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer risk[edit]

User:Cathry, you removed the content below with edit notes here saying "senseless" and here "not relevant to this page".

please explain how the risk of cancer is not relevant to this page, in a section on health effects?

When phytochemicals are tested for carcinogenicity in animal models, they test positive at about the same rate as synthetic chemicals.[1]

References

  1. ^ Gold L.S.; et al. (1992). "Rodent carcinogens: Setting priorities" (PDF). Science. 258: 261–265. doi:10.1126/science.1411524.

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is already mentioned in this article "Some phytochemicals are known phytotoxins that are toxic to humans". Toxicity includes carcinogenicity. Your sentence is sound like "all phytochemicals are carcinogenic as all synthetic chemicals". So it is senseless. Also it is 1992 year article, and it is ok and 2003 is outdate?! Cathry (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how any competent reader could get to "all" from "at about the same rate". (unless they believe that all synthetical chemicals cause cancer which is kooky) That is just a tendentious reading. This source is extremely valuable when talking about "natural" vs "artificial" chemicals as there is a sadly widespread notion that a chemical from nature is somehow 'safe" - but nothing, not even pure water, is "safe"; everything biologically active is toxic and even some phytochemicals are toxic at low doses. This sort of thing has been found in some whole food studies as well - in some studies a diet high in cruciferous vegetables appears to protect against polyps that are precursors to colon cancer but in others, people who ate more cruciferous vegetables got more polyps. See PMID 17466103. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You demonstrate that you want to do POV-pushing. Article already has info about phytotoxins. If you want to expand this theme to the types of phytotoxins and associated hazards, it is nesessary to expand part about various beneficial properties according to NPOV. " in some studies a diet high in cruciferous vegetables appears to protect against polyps that are precursors to colon cancer but in others, people who ate more cruciferous vegetables got more polyps" it is very interesting, but it is strange you want to add such contradictory results about risk, when you and Zefr delet far more optymistic results about benefits Cathry (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamenam and ACS refs[edit]

abougt this - the two refs say the same thing. Making them say differing things is a misrepresentation of the sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are completely different links. One about healh in general and another about cancer risk. And you diminished them to strange sentence about "plant-based diet" (sources don't mention it) and supplements. Cathry (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hm. they say the same thing:
  • ACS: "The term "phytochemicals" refers to a wide variety of compounds made by plants. Some of these compounds protect plants against insects or have other important functions. Some have either antioxidant or hormone-like actions both in plants and in the people who eat them. Because consuming vegetables and fruits is linked with a reduced risk of cancer, researchers are looking for the specific compounds responsible for the helpful effects. But at this time, no evidence has shown that phytochemicals taken as supplements are as good for your long-term health as the vegetables, fruits, beans, and grains from which they are extracted." (the vegetables/fruit = plant-based diet)
  • HanemanL "Phytochemicals are a large group of plant-derived compounds hypothesized to be responsible for much of the disease protection provided by diets high in fruits, vegetables, beans, cereals, and plant-based beverages such as tea and wine" (again, diets high in xyx - "plant-based diet". Haneman later says something even stronger that than the ACS: "The long-term effects of pharmacological doses of phytochemicals on human health are not well understood and therefore supplementation is not recommended. Furthermore, the relationship between food and health is complex. By replacing foods with supplements, beneficial food components or important interactions between food components may be lost." (emphasis added). The content you added directly contradicts Haneman. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, "diets hign in" - are not "plant-based". Plant-based diet is one with restricted of forbidden animal products. "Supplementation is not recommended" means pills with phytochemicals as dietary supplements are not recommended, because it is unclear exactly what compounds responsible for the helpful effects and important interactions between food components may be lost.. But it is obviously clear that some phytochemicals from plants responsible for the helpful effects, because fruits, vegetables, etc consist of phytochemicals according to biology. Cathry (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
no big deal, fixed it taking into account your objection to "plant-based diet". Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a good source?[edit]

Hi all! I just wanted to see if anyone could help me identify if this is a good source to use? https://www.ffhdj.com/index.php/ffhd/article/view/310/590 It is a review article so I believe it would be classified as a secondary source. But I have thought this is the past and still had issues when posting information. Any advice will help greatly thank you! AutumnAAllen (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Autumn Allen[reply]

That publication is not currently indexed on Medline and does not have a recognized impact factor, two characteristics indicating it has no reliable publishing history, and is therefore unusable for health or medical content on Wikipedia. Zefr (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phytochemical/Archive_1&oldid=1125953297"